netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] crypto: af_alg/hash: Fix recvmsg() after sendmsg(MSG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1132301.1687193246@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:47:26 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
    syzbot+13a08c0bf4d212766c3c@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
    syzbot+14234ccf6d0ef629ec1a@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
    syzbot+4e2e47f32607d0f72d43@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
    syzbot+472626bb5e7c59fb768f@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
    "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
    Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
    Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
    Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] crypto: af_alg/hash: Fix recvmsg() after sendmsg(MSG_MORE)

Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> Anyway, why did you remove the condition on hash_free_result?
> We free the result if it's not needed, not to clear the previous
> hash.  So by doing it uncondtionally you will simply end up
> freeing and reallocating the result for no good reason.

The free here:

	if (!continuing) {
		if ((msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE))
			hash_free_result(sk, ctx);

only happens in the following case:

	send(hashfd, "", 0, 0);
	send(hashfd, "", 0, MSG_MORE);  <--- by this

and the patch changes how this case works if no data is given.  In Linus's
tree, it will create a result, init the crypto and finalise it in
hash_sendmsg(); with this patch that case is then handled by hash_recvmsg().
If you consider the following sequence:

	send(hashfd, "", 0, 0);
	send(hashfd, "", 0, 0);
	send(hashfd, "", 0, 0);
	send(hashfd, "", 0, 0);

Upstream, the first one will create a result and then each of them will init
and finalise a hash, whereas with my patch, the first one will release any
outstanding result and then none of them will do any crypto ops.

However, as, with my patch hash_sendmsg() no longer calculated a result, it
has to clear the result pointer because the logic inside hash_recvmsg() relies
on the result pointer to indicate that there is a result.

Instead, hash_recvmsg() concocts the result - something it has to be able to
do anyway in case someone calls recvmsg() without first supplying data.

David